Q: Why do you
use the term "debunking" in your name. Doesn't that prove
you already think you're right?A: I use the term "Debunking" because I see
evidence which points to conspiracy "Bunk" and I
"Debunk" it. I find it Ironic that people in the "Truth"
movement would ask this.

Q: What is
Debunking 9/11's e-mail address?A:
debunk911@hotmail.com
Please read the FAQ before sending any Email. All E-mail
which is inflammatory or mindless will go straight to the
junk folder. A select few will have the privilege of being
added to my "Conspiracy Theorists hall
of Fame".

Q: Why do you hide your identity?A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right,
the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will
expose it the same as if you knew who I was.

Apparently this
is evidence to conspiracy theorists that I'm a "government shill". I guess a massive conspiracy to murder 3000 people
is easier to carry out than it would be for the government
to create a fake id on a web site. (Incredible...)

Update:

Someone at Alex
Jones's 'InfoWars' has created a rather unorthodox way of
telling who is a paid government shill.

"debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive
and professionally put together website that clearly has
had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes
to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the
evidence that has presented itself on the internet over
the last seven years as an alternative to the US
government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and
this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t
attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence
that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every
bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as
a propaganda site rather than a site that is
scientifically objective with its arguments."

His argument
boils down to he thinks:

My MS
FrontPage skills are professional grade.

I debunk
more than he thinks I should.

My web site
color is close to PNAC's banner.

I'm happy to see
the improvements I've made have impressed this conspiracy
theorist to the point he thinks I must be getting a chunk of
the defense budget. Because the last time my site was
featured on Alex Jones' InfoWars they weren't as kind...

A website which purports to disprove claims that
there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the
twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with
explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar
and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict
one another.

In even more
twisted logic, the writer recently writes...

My accusation at the beginning of the week that the
debunking9/11.com website was a neoconservative-inspired
site dedicated to preventing the revelation of evidence
showing that the events of 9/11 were not as the US
government had said has provoked a flurry of mostly
fringe lunatic comments supporting the now increasingly
discredited government story. In doing so, however, the
neoconservatives and their supporters have revealed
that, indeed, the site is nothing more than a
neoconservative propaganda site designed specifically to
feed the paranoia of those that fear the truth of what
their government and allies are able to do in the
pursuit of power, greed and hegemony.

Basically, if
you think his argument is as empty and absurd as I do then
you must be a
Neo-Con.

Q: Who funds
your site? Who pays you to do this? Are you paid by the
government?A: Anyone making the median income in America can easily
afford to create a web site. Some web hosts charge as low as
4 dollars a month. No one "Funds"
me and no one should need to fund conspiracy sites. I
shouldn't have to shell out even 4 dollars a year, much less
4 dollars a month to expose these groups misinformation but
I gladly do it. The only reason for those web sites to ask
who funds me is to suggest I'm a government shill. That way
you won't read any further. If you think I'm a government
shill because I paid for this web site then I'm not sure you
have the capacity to understand what's on it anyway.

The question the
conspiracy leaders DON'T want you to ask is why they need
donations and book sales at all? Are we supposed to believe
these "Truth seekers" can't afford 4 dollars a month between
them? Below is a list of "Webmasters" and other
computer/web site professionals who are members in Scholars
for Truth.

It's obvious
they don't need to pay outside help to create their sites.
Neither do I, which is why you wont find a single donation,
book or DVD sale icon on my site. It's hard to find a single
page on Alex Jones web sites which doesn't ask for money in
some way or another. He also asked for donations after
accusing Clinton of killing children in Waco. $93,000
dollars (That we know of) went to recreating the Waco
compound. He was a proud republican back then, runningfor Republican
House of Representatives. He was as successful in that
endeavor as he was on the radio back then. 9/11 seems to be his
new piggy bank.

So the
question is, who funds the major conspiracy sites?
Republican dirty tricks who want liberals to hate the
government as much as they do? The book publishers?
Conservative radio stations? The people who give donations?
And how much goes into their pockets?

Q: Why don't you
engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up
what you're saying?A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web
site? Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a
hall filled with conspiracy theorists clapping at every
utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts
on this site?

In a somewhat whiney attack, conspiracy theorists have come to
the conclusion that not putting an "s" at the end of
Conspiracy theorists is some sort of evidence of
Controlled Demolition. This and other attacks on my grammar
are obviously an attempt at character assassination. If they
paint me as less than "scholarly" then maybe people won't
look at the evidence in the same way. Unfortunately they
know this type of tactic works to some extent. Ironically
though,
character assassination is one of the Bush administration's
favorite tactics. It works for them, too. Remember Richard Clarke
and Scott Ritter? They haven't been shown to be wrong but some
Republicans still think that Scott Ritter was a
pedophile and Richard Clarke made everything up just because
he wanted to sell books. I'm in good company.

"how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific
analysis of a career physics professor?"

How, he asks, in
this appeal to authority?
Jones makes it easy. Even a grammatically challenged
individual such as myself can find fault with his blatant
misrepresentations. Why, if I find them so easily, aren't the "scholars"
finding them easily?
And why
can't the writer of the hit piece tell the large object
Jones calls molten metal is actually a collection of
impacted, (pancaked) concrete floors. Doesn't the legible type still imbedded in the concrete
prove to him it's not molten metal?

Basically, if
you feel the towers were blown up because I show poor
grammar and spelling, then you make a better spelling cop
than you do a Civil Engineer. Barney Fife has nothing on you.

This is the
height of logical fallacy. [Another criticism from this conspiracy theorist is that I use
the term "Logical Fallacy". It seems others have used
the term to describe their logic and that indicates to them
that I'm in cahoots with them.. Maybe I use it because the term
fits? No new conspiracy necessary.] I don't
debate, therefore the columns weren't pulled in over time???
[I don't show good grammar and spelling so the columns
weren't pulled in over time? I use the term "logical
fallacy" so maybe the columns weren't pulled in over time?] Is that the logic? It can't be that I don't feel comfortable
in a public forum? It can't be that I'm not a good public
speaker... (As you can see, I don't even write very well but
at least I can go back and correct mistakes) [The
conspiracy theorists logical errors will always be there.
I've already corrected my grammar and spelling.]

I find it
interesting that for some reason the people in the "truth"
movement need an audience to cheer them on in order to find
the truth. [I'm sure the debate would be about my grammar
and not the evidence I present.] I prefer that people read the sites without
interruption and make up their own minds. This is just more
evidence to me that the "truth" movement is all politics.
[Especially the recent character assassination in the place
of facts.] They
need a person to person debate as if this was a political
race. I say put it up on your web sites and shut up about debates. [and spelling]
Because when
conspiracy theorists debate the facts, they lose.

This issue is much like the
evolution/creation debate in that I can mirror the
reasons why I chose not to debate conspiracy theorists.

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is
at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific
journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by
anyone at their leisure. Conspiracy Theorists are
unwilling to debate there.

Public debates are usually set up so that the
winners are determined by public speaking ability, not
by quality of material.

Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do
not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A
common tactic used by some prominent conspiracy
theorists is to rattle off dozens of bits of
misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for
the responder to address each in the time or space
allotted.

Notwithstanding the above points, there have been
several debates, both live and online. I don't need to
add myself to the list.

Q: Why don't you
have anything on the Pentagon?A: Because this idea is so far out there that even the conspiracy
sites are debunking it. I offer links which go into that
issue in detail.
I'm more interested in the stories the conspiracy theorists
are in agreement with.

Q: I have
information you can use on your site. Can I contribute?A: Please feel free to send me any photos, videos and
information you think I can use on this site. We are
especially looking for photos of the south side of building
7 on 9/11 or photos of melted, falling liquid metals on or
after 9/11. Keep in mind I
have already seen all the major conspiracy theorists web
sites. If I use it I will give you credit but only if you
wish.

Q: Are you a
republican/Neo-con?A: I am a flaming liberal and proud of it.

Update:

Further proof
that some
conspiracy theorists are lying is found in this quote from a
prominent conspiracy theorist site...

The author of the
Debunking 9/11 website refuses to
reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part
of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front
page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

No evidence
whatsoever is shown for this conclusion other than I said
I'm a liberal. Of course, they have to say I'm a shill of
some kind. Again, if I'm a "gatekeeper" it doesn't change
the facts. The only reason to bring this up is character assassination. At the same time this "Truth Seeker" is saying that I show poor grammar. (Something I agree with) What are these so called "Left GateKeepers" doing putting up web sites with poor grammar? THIS
is what shows me the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the
leaders of this movement. There is no sign of critical
thinking here. It's nowhere to be found. You would think
the people they say are "Left Gatekeepers" have the money to
find a better writer. Talk about contradiction? No irony
here... They can't even attack my character
without turning it around on themselves. I suspect they'll
put up some pretty graphic connecting me to some corporation
now, without any evidence. Yet, the graphics connecting conspiracy theorists to
conspiracy theory book sales, new conspiracy theorists radio
listeners, libertarian, green party, democrat candidate
donations and money from web links will have to come some
other day.

Why did this
conspiracy theorist write that piece? I suspect they know
I'm going to trash most of the mindless messages. I can
think of two reasons, one is to keep their flocks minds on
something other than thinking about the evidence. If they're
busy typing e-mails to me they
aren't reading my site. The second reason is to keep their
radio listeners hyped and motivated. Anyway, I actually
received some good responses from the article. It also
provided me an opportunity to clean up the site. So in that
respect I guess I should say, thanks!

Q: Why do you do this?A: There are many reasons.

In a
free society you need to hear all sides of an issue. I
am but one of a few giving that other side.

One of
the sad things I've uncovered are the large number of
people using this tragedy for religious, political and monetary
gain. These same people say the families of the victims
deserve the truth. I agree.

Q: Why do you
bother? You aren't going to change anyone's mind. A: Not everyone is locked to a belief. Some people are
honestly trying to make up their mind and need
to hear what the other side has to say.

Q: Most of
your arguments seem to be straw men. Why do you attack
arguments I'm not making?A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do
not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your
favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who
make it. (Read: logical fallacy) If the topic doesn't
apply to you, then just skip it and go on to the next.

Q: Why don't
you have a message board or blog to argue your case? Does
that mean you're scared to debate the issues?A: This question was asked of me as if not having one means
the facts change. The evidence is strong
for the perimeter columns being pulled in over time. The
evidence for that is on this site whether I have a forum or
not. I debate this issue on forums and don't feel the need
to add yet another forum just to appeal to someone's excuse
for denying the events on 9/11. (Is there a sillier reason
to hold on to some ones misguided beliefs?)

Q: Why don't
you have anything on all the other 'coincidences' which
happened that day? Doesn't that prove the government was
involved?A: In every major event, there are coincidences,
false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public.
Conspiracy theorists live for this. They create a web of
logical fallacies which are not based on research, logic
or evidence. Their assumptions are based on a string of
misinformation hand picked for mass consumption. There are others dealing with those
stories which I have on the links page. It's a
logical fallacy to suggest that just because I don't care to
deal with these myths that they must be true. For instance,
the evidence for explosives or incendiaries doesn't increase
with the time Bush spent in the classroom that day. That's just
absurd. Yet many use his time in the classroom as some sort
of proof. It may only prove how incompetent the Bush
administration was that historic day.

Q: How can
you believe the official story? Don't you see the
inconsistencies? A: Much of the evidence on this site did NOT come from any
official anything. I came to my conclusions after doing my
own original research into conspiracy theory claims. Some of
the original research includes:

1. Orio
Palmer's "Two Lines" quote distorted by conspiracy
theorists debunked2. "First time in history" debunk3. NIST and Pancaking4. Much of the top sections fell into the bottom sections
and on the floors.5. Most of the firemen quotes on building 7 which show the
building was far worse than Conspiracy Theorists say.6. WTC 7 fell to the south7. Most of the media and firefighters knew building 7 was
going to collapse from the fires. It was no secret
demolition8. Videos show buildings did not fall at freefall.
9. Aluminum Airliners melt in fires without hitting
buildings.10. Molten Steel explained11. So called Squibs on 7 are really damaged panels
12. So called molten metal pool is really evidence of
pancaking13. Objects flung away from collapse said to be steel is
actually aluminum.14. Massive conspiracy needed15. Zogby poll

Q: Why do you
spend so much time lambasting conspiracy theorists instead
of pointing out government incompetence? Doesn't this mean
you are helping war criminals? Aren't you enabling the very
government you say is incompetent?A: First of all, what am I doing if I'm not blaming
government (The evidence suggests leadership) incompetence?
If the government wasn't incompetent then how did the
terrorist manage to pull this off? It's well known there
were actions and inactions which led to 9/11 without a
shadowy government involved. For me to add yet another site
dealing with this when there are already thousands of sites
dealing with this is absurd. And for what? To take away the
absurd argument: I can prove conspiracy theorists wrong = I
must be helping the government? That seems to be the almost
Rovian like spin of the question.

Yes, that is
spin worthy of Karl Rove. Because if anyone is helping the
government get away with incompetence it's the conspiracy
theorists. How is my pointing out conspiracy theorists
almost comical attempt at quote and photo mining not
preventing a "Poisoned Well" ? We already see the conflation
by conservative talk show hosts to call any investigation
into 9/11 "Liberal Conspiracy theories". This, even when
some of the leaders of the conspiracy movement are
conservative. They get to pollute the conversation on
investigations as they create fear around the government and
enable others to label liberals kooks.

I only attack
the leaders of the conspiracy movement after I've shown how
absurd their arguments are. Unlike the leaders of the
conspiracy theorists who attack me with quote mining and
baseless suggestions of me being "In on it".